Edwards v. California Supreme Court
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-02253
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Edwards v. California Supreme Court, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the case during required screening because the complaint was incomprehensible, frivolous, and lacked a claim or federal jurisdiction.
Myeisha M. Edwards; the California Supreme Court as the defendant
What happened
Myeisha M. Edwards sued the California Supreme Court and filed the case without paying the filing fee. After an earlier screening order identified problems with her complaint, Edwards filed a second amended complaint as instructed.
The court found that the second amended complaint did not explain facts supporting a claim for relief or federal jurisdiction. It cited the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Supreme Court rules, and a constitutional provision, but those materials did not create a private claim. The complaint also included court letters, a petition page, and unexplained lists of Powerball wagers, making it incomprehensible.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed the action because it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, and had defects that could not be fixed by another amendment. The court said Edwards could appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 30 days after judgment was entered.
The detailed version
- Edwards v. California Supreme Court · No. 3:23-cv-02253
- Martinez-Olguin
- Apr. 4, 2024
Background
Myeisha M. Edwards was proceeding without paying the filing fee, so the court was required to screen her complaint before issuing a summons. The court had previously screened her first amended complaint and directed her to correct deficiencies involving her claim for relief and the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. After an appellate challenge to that order was dismissed, Edwards filed a second amended complaint.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss the case if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court also explained that federal district courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction and must dismiss cases over which they lack jurisdiction.
The court found that the second amended complaint did not satisfy either instruction from the first screening order. It was incomprehensible and did not provide facts showing that Edwards was entitled to relief or that the court had jurisdiction. Edwards cited the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of the United States Supreme Court, and the constitutional provision establishing the Supreme Court. The court ruled that those procedural rules and constitutional provisions did not create a private cause of action or establish a federal question.
The complaint also attached letters from the Clerk of the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, concerning a final decision in another proceeding, a one-page document titled “Petition Writ Certiorari Legal Question,” and unexplained lists of “Powerball Wagers” from October and November 2018. The court concluded that the complaint was totally incomprehensible and therefore frivolous.
Disposition
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed the action. The court stated that the action was frivolous, the complaint did not state a claim for relief, and the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. The court advised Edwards that she could appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 30 days after entry of judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.